At Olliers we regularly achieve no further action as a result of our proactive and front footed strategic approach with pre-charge engagement.
A selection of our recent successful case studies can be seen below for sexual offences, rape, indecent images of children, controlling and coercive behaviour, domestic allegations and other criminal offences.
Why choose Olliers?
Sexual Offences
R v LK (2026) Historic Sexual Allegations - No Further Action
- Obtaining witness statements from witnesses that knew both parties at the time of the allegation. They were able to provide evidence that undermined the case.
- Obtaining witness statements from a witness that knew the complainant. They raised a potential motive for a false complaint.
- Social Media evidence showing recent communication with the complainant. This raised questions about their credibility.
- Character references in relation to the client. These suggested he was a credible witness.
R v F (2026) Sexual Assault - No Further Action
Austin Anderson-Brettell represented a client at the police station accused of sexual assault. Discussions with the officer in charge pre-interview regarding the veracity of the evidence led to the officer indicating he would be recommending no further action against the client. Unfortunately, the duty inspector refused to authorise this and the client was bailed with strict conditions.
Austin immediately engaged with the police, presenting pre-charge representations which highlighted the inconsistencies in the evidence and that there were no further viable lines of enquiry. It was submitted that the charging standard could not be met and therefore the appropriate course of action was to proceed with no further action against the client.
Following consideration of the representations the police promptly agreed that no further action would be taken against our client, and the client’s bail was cancelled.
R v GF (2026) Historic Sexual Allegations
- Witness statements from family members that suggested that the complainant had a habit of making false complaints against other people and other family members.
- Witness statements from other people she had made false allegations against.
- Character witnesses who indicated that they couldn’t believe that the complaint was true.
- Social Media evidence provided by the complainant that undermined her allegation.
- A psychological review of the complainant which suggested that the complainant may have a personality disorder.
R v II (2026) Rape - No Further Action
Jack Tomlinson was instructed further to representation at interview in respect of an allegation of rape.
The client was alleged to have committed rape against a 16-year old whom he had met on social media.
The offence was strenuously denied and Olliers were instructed to engage in pre-charge representation with the police. We were able to identify key issues with the allegation made, with a particular focus on the lack of engagement from the complainant in providing a formal statement. We presented evidence to the police that the complainant was posting about the allegation on social media whilst advising the police that she did not feel able to talk about the alleged offence.
We also submitted robust opposition to the court to prevent bail being extended unnecessarily, the police application to extend ultimately failed as a result.
We made submissions to the police that the length of time without any formal supporting statement from the complainant meant that the matter should be promptly no further actioned. This outcome was achieved and the client was able to put the matter behind him.
R v X (2025) Indecent Images of Children – No Further Action
We were instructed by the parents of a 16-year-old male who had been arrested for possessing and distributing indecent images of children. Our client, X, was diagnosed neurodivergent and extremely vulnerable.
The CPS charging decision is based on the evidential test and the public interest test as laid out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
This was a challenging case in that the strength of the evidence against X was significant as the police had captured his online activity and traced it to his phone.
X had co-operated in police interview by answering questions put to him and providing access to his devices; however, his period of detention raised issues for the defence in the treatment of a 16-year-old vulnerable boy with learning difficulties.
Criticisms of the lack of available safeguards to protect him during the custodial period were of significant concern to his parents and to be addressed in the defence pre-charge representations.
On the basis that a review of the data had been completed at the time of drafting the pre-charge engagement we submitted early representations focusing on the public interest test.
We made representations to the officer in the case that it was not in the public interest to charge X and that other disposals were more appropriate.
We recommended that X be dealt with by way of undertaking educational courses to safeguard him and others from risky online behaviour. As a young person of good character who had not hindered the police investigation and was fully engaged to comply with the recommended educational courses, we argued that the Criminal Justice System would not be served by prosecuting a young, vulnerable person such as X.
The officer in the case agreed with our representations and referred the case to the police Youth Justice Panel for further ratification by the CPS.
The principle aim of the Youth Justice System for all agencies involved is to prevent offending. In educating X at this transitional and difficult time in his life, as opposed to charging him and thereby introducing him to the Criminal Justice System; it was hoped that future offending would be completely curtailed. This route was recognised as the best one for X and all involved agreed.
The case was decided accordingly and given a formal outcome of No Further Action by the police.
R v BP (2025) Rape – No Further Action
The case involved a report of rape. Our client and the complainant had met for the first time during a night out where both had drunk considerable amounts of alcohol but not with each other.
At the end of the night they walked from a city centre nightclub to the accommodation of the complainant where sexual intercourse took place.
Within two days following the meeting a report of rape was made by the complainant to the police. From the limited disclosure given by the police at that time it seemed that the complainant was alleging that she had been too intoxicated to consent to the sexual activity that took place that night.
The client contacted us after his arrest and interview. We were instructed to engage with the police at the pre-charge stage of the investigation with a view to diversion from charge due to lack of supporting evidence of the allegation.
In taking a detailed account from our client and requesting CCTV evidence be seized from the nightclub to the route back to the complainant’s apartment, we were able to influence the police enquiries.
Supporting statements from witnesses who saw the complainant with our client that night were also taken and submitted with our representations.
The client’s account was that the complainant was coherent and in full control of her faculties. At no point was she incapable to consent.
The CCTV footage and witness accounts corroborated the client and this investigation was concluded in an extremely short time by the police who made the decision that there would be No Further Action in this case.
R v A (2025) Sexual Assault - No Further Action
A was arrested for an allegation of sexual assault. At the time of the allegation, A and the complainant were engaging in a secret affair. They were part of a friendship group but developed a connection, which led to them communicating and meeting in private.
It was alleged that A had followed the complainant without her knowledge and attended at her apartment uninvited, after they had been messaging during the night out. Whilst inside the apartment, it was alleged that HP kissed the complainant and penetrated her vagina and anus with his fingers, without consent.
A instructed Olliers after he had been interviewed under caution, during which he was represented by a duty solicitor. We established that A had material that would assist his case and rebut aspects of the allegation.
We worked closely with A to gather material, including messages between him and the complainant and evidence of his location on the night in question, to support his version of events.
We prepared pre-charge engagement representations and maintained regular communication with the investigating officer on A’s behalf. Approximately six months after his arrest, the police confirmed that a “No Further Action” decision had been made. This decision was made by the police without seeking CPS advice.
This was a successful outcome for Olliers and came as a great relief for A.
R v AA (2025) Voyeurism and Indecent Images of Children - No Further Action
R v AJ (2025) Sexual activity with a child - No Further Action
We represented a client AJ who faced allegations of sexual activity with a child.
The complainant alleged that the suspect has been touching her inappropriately on a number of occasions, making her feel uncomfortable. Due to the nature of the allegations, social services became involved.
AJ vehemently denied the allegations and provided a full account to the Police when he was arrested and interviewed. He immediately sought our assistance at the pre-charge stage of his case. As the investigation was ongoing we were able to offer our advice and support throughout the process and build a case in support of his innocence.
We conducted various work whilst preparing his case which included reviewing disclosure, taking and drafting his detailed account in response to the various allegations made, this supported the drafting of any subsequent representations to be made about the prosecution case having no realistic prospect of securing a conviction at trial. We obtained various supporting character witness statements to provide an insight into AJ’s personality and his character traits which supported him being a credible witness.
Eventually no further action was taken in relation to the allegations and the matter concluded without the need for AJ to have to attend court and defend his case. Early resolution of the case was the best possible outcome and a huge relief to AJ and his family following what was the most challenging time of their lives.
R v KR (2024) Rape - No Further Action
We represented a client, KR, who was a successful salesman. His employer arranged an all expenses paid ‘night out’ for staff, including a hotel stay, to celebrate the company’s quarterly sales success. The night involved a meal followed by drinks in the hotel bar. After a period of flirtation, the client and the complainant, who were good friends, agreed to go back to his room, where they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. The complainant alleged to colleagues that the client had anally penetrated her when she had told him not to. This disclosure led to Human Resources Department speaking with the complainant and the police being called. An allegation of rape was made.
KR denied the offence and provided an account in the police interview. He then instructed us at the pre-charge stage. We took his detailed account, identified possible lines of inquiry and defence disclosure that supported his version of events. This included several witness statements which we obtained from his colleagues, who confirmed comments made by the complainant, that were inconsistent with the account she gave to the police. We also obtained digital evidence namely photographs and text messages. We drafted Pre-Charge Engagement and liaised with the investigating officer.
The police did not submit the case to the CPS but decided that the evidential threshold was not met and made a decision themselves of ‘no further action’, bring the case to a close.
This was a relief to KR who was a lead salesman for his company and was worried that he would lose his job, if he was prosecuted, in addition to significant damage to his reputation.
R v B (2024) Rape - No Further Action
Toby Wilbraham represented a youth who was under investigation for an alleged rape. B was 15 years old and was alleged to have been involved in a sexual relationship with an older girl at the school he attended. After they split she told the School they attended that she had been raped on one occasion. The School investigated this allegation and took it no further. She then made a complaint to the Police.
Mr Wilbraham represented B at the Police station. A pre-prepared statement was put forward denying the alleged incident. The statement suggested that the allegation was malicious as the complainant was unhappy that the relationship had ended and believed (wrongly) that B had been unfaithful to her. It was clear that the complainant had issues at home and had a problematic relationship with her mother.
Following the interview Mr Wilbraham liaised with Police as part of the pre-charge-engagement protocol. Evidence was provided to the Police, alongside character references to show that B was a credible witness. Mr Wilbraham requested that the Police make reasonable lines of enquiry to assist B’s case, including obtaining the investigation file from school, mental health records of the complainant and obtain digital communication around the time of the allegation showing that she had made no complainant at the time, only after they had split.
Following the representations the Police made no further action against B, which was a relief to him and his parents.
R v X (2024) Grooming - No Further Action
Toby Wilbraham was instructed by the family of X to deal with an allegation sexual activity with a child. Mr Wilbraham represented Mr X at a police station in the Greater Manchester area. It transpired that the complainant had alleged a number of offences against a number of different complainants in what the Police believed may be a child grooming case.
Based on X’s instructions Mr Wilbraham advised him to put forward an account during the interview to distinguish his case from the other allegations. In the account X stated that he had met the complainant via social media and believed through the messages she had sent and the information seen on social media that she was an adult. He accepted they met and engaged in sexual activity thereafter.
The investigating officers were subsequently able to corroborate X’s account and found evidence that the complainant had stated that she was an adult to him. Accordingly, they were able to take no further action against him, much to the relief of X and his family.
R v SH (2024) Sexual Risk Order - No Further Action
A Sexual Risk Order (SRO) is a civil order applied for by the police and is heard in the Magistrates’ Court. The police could apply for a SRO during the police investigation, so it runs alongside the investigation and any bail conditions or following a No Further Action (NFA) decision.
If granted, the Order will contain restrictive and/or positive conditions and a Full Order has a minimum term of 2 years, with no maximum duration, which means it could last for whatever length of time the court deems appropriate (until another order or indefinitely). A breach of the SRO is a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. Finally, being made subject to an SRO could have subsequent consequences relating to employment, prohibit contact with certain individuals including family members, restrict use of the internet and require devices to be examined when required by the police.
These factors illustrate that an SRO has significant implications, which means that no matter what stage the police apply for an SRO, it is essential that legal advice is obtained with a view to fighting the application. Put plainly, an SRO should never be taken as granted, as they can be successfully opposed and refused by the court.
An example of such a situation is illustrated by our client SH. SH instructed Olliers to engage with the police in Pre-Charge Engagement, following his arrest for Possession of Indecent Images. The case concluded after the police made a No Further Action decision. Just when SH thought it was all over and he could finally move on with his life, he received a SRO summons.
SH continued instructing Olliers to represent him in relation to the SRO. His instructions were to oppose the police application for the Interim and Full Sexual Risk Order. We gathered material to build his case, including witness statements, communication with the police and his employer. We drafted legal documents including Statement of Case, Hearsay Notice and Schedule of Costs.
This case was unusual because the Judge, on two separate occasions (namely the First Hearing and a Case Management Hearing), allowed the police two opportunities to apply for the Interim Order. On each of these occasions, we opposed the application and the Judge agreed with our representations and refused the police application for an Interim Order.
This was a great result for our client, particularly as Interim Orders are often perceived as easier applications for the police to obtain due to the standard of proof at this stage being low (the police only have to establish that it is ‘necessary’ whereas a Full Order requires the civil standard of proof ‘balance of probabilities’ ). However, the police were determined to continue, despite the Judge’s findings, proceeded with their application for a Full Order.
At the Full Hearing, Counsel opposed the police application, SH gave evidence and the police witness was cross-examined. The result – the Judge refused the police application for a Full Order
SH was extremely pleased having been through three successful opposed applications and he was finally able to move back to his family home and forward with his life. This was a great result for Olliers.
Fraud
R v F (2026) Fraud - Case Discontinued
Austin represented a client charged with an allegation of fraud relating to the use of a cancelled blue badge. It was alleged that the client had used a cancelled badge belonging to a relative, and that they had done so dishonestly and for their own gain. Prior to charge the client had been represented by another firm of solicitors and instructed Olliers three months before their trial.
Austin immediately took detailed instructions from the client and sought evidence and disclosure from the prosecuting authority. It was the client’s account that they did not know the badge was cancelled, and on the day in question they had parked the vehicle with the intention of picking up the badge holder. The prosecuting authority disputed the client’s account, stating that the client was dishonest, as their responses to question in interview were different than their account now. Through careful consideration of the evidence and disclosure regarding the interview, it was highlighted to the prosecuting authority that their position regarding the alleged dishonesty of the defendant was unfounded, and that the interview occurred days following the actual alleged offence, and therefore the responses to questions weren’t dishonest, but a true reflection of the circumstances on that specific day.
It was also brought to the prosecuting authority’s attention following consideration of the material that it appeared the charge of Fraud was laid as a device to circumvent the statutory time limit for misuse of a blue badge. It was highlighted that this had the potential to amount to an abuse of process and stay of proceedings in itself.
Following consideration of the defence statement, and the service of further supporting evidence, a notice of discontinuance was received, meaning the client no longer needed to attend trial.
R v CD (2025) Fraud by abuse of position - No Further Action
C was investigated in respect of an allegation of committing fraud by abuse of position/theft. C was originally employed as an accounts administrator in 2010. Having been with the firm for several years and the officer manager retiring, C was then promoted to take over the office manager role and agreed a salary increase and pension contributions in line with the othermanager working at the company. This role still involved oversight of payroll subject to the company’s accountant having final oversight.
C was dismissed in 2022 following discussions regarding home/office working and a request by the employer to work more than the contracted hours. This led to employment tribunal proceedings commencing while the company made a police report, alleging fraud by C.
The nature of the allegation was that C had significantly overpaid herself an inflated salary which had not been approved by the directors. This was strenuously denied by our client. The company suggested that her pay was not in keeping with the pay of her initial contact, signed in 2010, relying on the lack of any new contract being materialised.
The defence were able to obtain documentation from the company which tracked their initial investigation into the matter. The company suggested that C had never been promoted when in fact, their own internal reports were frequently headlined with the phrase “office manager” in respect of C.
Initial pre-charge representations were made to the police highlighting key discrepancies in the claim made by the company which clearly suggested that the company knew and authorised C’s promotion and full awareness of her inclusion into the managerial pension programme. We also suggested further key lines of enquiry to the police that would assist with the defence assertion that there would be no case to answer.
Following further review of the case by the police, the decision was made to take no further action in respect of any potential criminal charge.
R v MB (2024) Inheritance theft - No Further Action
Toby Wilbraham represented MB at the Police Station in relation to an allegation that he had defrauded his mother from money from her estate as she became increasingly unwell and immobile using his power of attorney.
Mr Wilbraham liaised with him in advance of the attendance to take initial instructions and obtained relevant documents and information from BM to assist in the interview. BM provided an account in interview, referring to the documentary evidence he had obtained. Details of witnesses were provided to the officer to corroborate his account.
Mr Wilbraham liaised with the officer and BM thereafter to provide more information to assist him. Ultimately no further evidence was offered by the Police meaning that the case wasn’t prosecuted further and BM could get on with his life.
Domestic Allegations
R v Y (2025) Controlling and Coercive Behaviour – No Further Action
Mr Y was arrested at Heathrow airport after coming back from holiday. He was questioned in relation to a relationship he had with Miss G that had ended several years before.
It was alleged that Mr Y was controlling and coercive during that relationship. In particular it was alleged he had exercised control over her by pretending to be an imaginary third party who contacted Miss G and relayed sexual fantasies to her. It was further alleged that he had been controlling towards her by limiting her contact with friends and family.
Mr Y denied being controlling towards her by separating her from her family and friends. We were able to provide to the police material that suggested that the relationship was loving throughout including cards that she had written to him with loving messages, a dissertation she had written for University that included a warm tribute to him, pictures of the couple together during their relationship and other material that suggested there were no issues between them.
After reviewing the material we sent them as part of pre-charge-engagement the police ultimately offered no further evidence against him and the matter was closed allowing him to move forward with his life.
R v CQ (2025) Sexual Assault and Controlling and Coercive Behaviour – No Further Action
CQ instructed Toby Wilbraham from Olliers to represent him at a pre-charge stage after he was arrested and interview in relation to allegations of sexual assault and controlling and coercive behaviour against his ex-girlfriend who was a serving police officer.
Toby Wilbraham took instructions from CQ who stated that he had been in a relationship with the complainant, but this deteriorated over time after they bought a property together. He stated that the property needed a lot of work and himself and his family did most of the renovating of the house. He stated that the complainant did little to help out and would not clear up after herself leaving discarded food containers around which he cleared up. He ended the relationship and asked her to move out. She left following an argument and subsequently made a complaint to the police.
Toby Wilbraham took a number of witness statement from family members that corroborated his account. He also obtained a number of character witnesses that undermined the allegations against him. Other material was also obtained that helped his case including an email that the complainant sent to him while he was still on bail for the allegations.
A selection of this material was sent to the police as part of the pre-charge-engagement process. After reviewing the material the police felt that it significantly undermined the allegations and decided to offer no further evidence against him, bringing the matter to a quick end.
R v XY (2025) Controlling and coercive behaviour, threats to kill, non-fatal strangulation and rape - No further Action
Martha Odysseos was instructed to represent XY at the pre-charge engagement stage following allegations being made by an ex-partner. He was initially represented by the duty solicitor at the police station where he was advised to answer all questions denying the allegations.
XY instructed Olliers a month after his arrest. We took detailed instructions from the client and gathered a large number of witness statements from his friends and family which supported his account; it also undermined the credibility of the complainant and provided insight into the client’s character. In addition, we were able to download his WhatsApp messages with his ex-partner which cast doubt on the truthfulness of the allegations. We also obtained proof that civil proceedings in relation to an outstanding loan had been started on the day prior to her report to police which raised issues about the motivation behind the allegations.
We commenced pre-charge engagement with the officer in the case, providing a number of lines of enquiries for the investigation to look into and made relevant tactical disclosures of our supporting material. Whilst instructed, XY was invited to a further interview as further allegations of a sexual nature were made. We represented XY in this interview where we provided our pre-charge engagement documents to the officer in person and discussed the merits of the case.
After consideration of our engagement, the case was passed to an inspector who authorised no further action to be taken on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
This case shows how meticulous preparation at the pre-charge stage can influence a decision, even before the case reaches the CPS. The material provided to the police was material that they would not have sought out within their investigation and without this an entirely different decision about the case could have been made.
R v AB (2024) Rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and assault - No Further Action
Toby Wilbraham represented AB following his arrest for a series of allegations made against him by his wife including rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and assault.
AB had been arrested and interviewed by the duty solicitor. In interview he denied the allegations and suggested that they were malicious as the couple had split up and his wife had instigated family proceedings against him.
His original solicitor had advised him to wait and do nothing but AB looked online and saw that Olliers specialised in pre-charge work. He instructed Mr Wilbraham to deal with the case.
Mr Wilbraham initially obtained the Police Station file from the previous solicitors to see the detail of the allegations. He then took instructions from the client. He then compiled and organised a lot of information and material provided by the client including text messages, photos, videos and voice recordings.
Relevant material was then provided to the Police under pre-charge engagement protocols. This included messages that contradicted what the complainant had alleged, photos of the complainant that undermined some of the allegations and financial information that questioned her suggestion that he was financially controlling her.
As a consequence the Police ultimately dropped the case against him avoiding long drawn out and costly court proceedings.
R v TL (2025) Allegation of assault - No Further Action
TL instructed Olliers after his former girlfriend contacted the Police to allege a number of assaults against him during their relatively brief relationship. One allegation of assault was that he hit her during sex causing a broken jaw.TL worked at a high profile job and was concerned that if he was prosecuted he would lose it.
Toby Wilbraham, working with Aimee Darbyshire-Ellison undertook pre-charge work with TL. Detailed instructions were taken and a large quantity of material was collated that could be used for representations.
Pre-charge engagement was undertaken with the Police. Material was provided to the Police that showed that TL was a credible witness whereas the complainant appeared not to be. Material was provided to the Police that suggested that the allegations were not true and at the time the relationship was happy and the complainant raised no issues.
Material was also provided to the Police that suggested that the complainant had mental health issues that were relevant to the allegations and this further undermined her credibility.
As a consequence the Police decided, at a relatively early stage, to take no further action against TL who was very relieved about this.
R v L (2024) Stalking and possession of a class B drugs - No Further Action
Regulatory
R v C (2026) Alleged breach of section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (“HSWA”)
Head of Olliers’ Regulatory Department, Gareth Martin, was recently instructed to provide advice and assistance to a national meat processing company facing a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (“the HSE”) in respect of an alleged breach of section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (“HSWA”).
Section 2 HSWA states that it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all its employees. The duty of an employer includes, amongst other things:
- The provision of plant and systems of work that are safe;
- The provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure the health and safety of employees.
If convicted of an offence an organisation is liable to an unlimited financial penalty. The Sentencing Council has, however, produced Definitive Guidelines on the Sentencing of Health and Safety Offences (“the Guideline”) which the courts must follow.
In this case, the investigation followed an incident in which an employee amputated part of his index finger whilst using hydraulic cutters. The HSE identified a number of failings including a lack of risk assessments; inadequate training; a lack of refresher training; an absence of procedural systems of work; poor communication between management and employees, some of whom were migrant workers whose first language was not English and unsuitable work equipment.
The company acknowledged the failings and immediately set about implementing a raft of changes to improve practices at the site. Along with Austin Welch of Lincoln House Chambers, Gareth collated an extensive mitigation bundle and submissions for a plea and sentencing hearing before the District Judge hearing the case.
The facts of the case were such that on the face of it, it was one involving high culpability on the part of the company. High culpability is described in the Guideline as involving the following conduct:
- Offender fell far short of the appropriate standard; for example, by:
- failing to put in place measures that are recognised standards in the industry;
- ignoring concerns raised by employees or others;
- failing to make appropriate changes following prior incident(s) exposing risks to health and safety; or
- allowing breaches to subsist over a long period of time.
- Serious and/or systemic failure within the organisation to address risks to health and safety.
The aim of the mitigation bundle and submissions was to seek to persuade the District Judge to treat the case as one of medium culpability. Medium culpability is defined in the Guideline as being as follows:
- Offender fell short of the appropriate standard in a manner that falls between descriptions in ‘high’ and ‘low’ culpability categories, or
- Systems were in place but these were not sufficiently adhered to or implemented.
Similarly, we sought to persuade the court that the harm risked by the company’s breach was Level B which is described in the Guideline as being physical or mental impairment, not amounting to Level A, which has a substantial and long-term effect on the sufferer’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities or on their ability to return to work or a progressive, permanent or irreversible condition.
Furthermore, we submitted that the likelihood of the harm was not high rather medium despite what the facts may have suggested on first glance.
Having heard from prosecution counsel and Mr Welch on behalf of the company, the District Judge acknowledged the pragmatic approach taken by the defence and credited the company for its conduct.
The Judge agreed with the submissions in terms of culpability and harm. The Judge was also persuaded not to apply any uplift which again, at the outset, was a very distinct possibility.
In the circumstances the Judge took £300,000 as the starting point for the fine. This was reduced to £240,000 on the basis of the mitigation and further reduced to £210,000 because of the company finances. Having then applied credit for the prompt guilty plea, the fine was reduced again to £140,000. The company were also ordered to pay the standard victim surcharge of £190 and just over £5,500 in prosecution costs but given 6 months to pay the total sum.
This was a very positive outcome for the company which could quite easily have faced a fine in the high hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more. The result was welcomed by the company who thanked Gareth and Austin for the “service and support throughout”.
R v SP (2025) Failure to file company accounts contrary to s441 and 451 of the Companies Act 2006.
Gareth Martin recently represented a client, SP, who is the sole director of a multi-national company specialising in the online sale of mobile phone accessories, accessories for digital cameras and camcorders, as well as other electronic devices.
Our client was summonsed by Companies House to appear before Cardiff Magistrates’ Court in relation to an allegation that he failed to file company accounts contrary to s441 and 451 of the Companies Act 2006.
Before the scheduled first appearance, Gareth made an unopposed application for the case to be administratively adjourned. Thereafter, Gareth worked closely with the client and the company’s accountants before drafting detailed submissions inviting the prosecution to reconsider the decision to prosecute SP.
Gareth set out the background to the company and how the director found himself in this position; he also referenced both the Code for Crown Prosecutors and Companies House own enforcement strategy in order to support the assertion that prosecuting SP was no longer the most appropriate, proportionate, or reasonable response when the full circumstances of the case were properly and fairly considered.
Having reviewed Gareth’s submissions, the prosecution agreed to discontinue the case against our client. This was a huge relief to SP who had never been in trouble before; the consequences of being convicted would have been far-reaching including serious reputational damage and an almost inevitable adverse impact on new business interests in the UK and abroad.
Criminal Law
R v NS (2025) Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place – No Further action
He was searched by security in a government building and found to be in possession of a spring-loaded friction lock baton. He had been fully open and honest with both the security officers and the police. He expressed his shock at the fact that the baton was illegal and agreed to attend an interview under caution.
NS instructed us for the interview and pre-charge engagement. We took a detailed account from him which included background information. We did various work which included obtaining exhibits and character references.
He provided a prepared statement in interview admitting to the offence and offering his wholehearted apologies for the situation. The police stated he would likely be offered a caution for this matter.
We made pre-charge representations to the police decision maker for them to consider whether it was appropriate for them to take no further action on public interest grounds.
The police agreed and took no further action against NS.
This was a great relief to NS who was a man of good character and would have suffered reputational damage even if he had been cautioned.
Motoring Law
R v J (2026) Failing to Provide A Specimen - No Evidence Offered
Austin represented a client at trial charged with failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. It was the defendant’s case that they had not failed to provide, and that there was a reasonable excuse not to provide due to language barriers and mental health conditions.
Throughout the course of the case, the Crown and the Court were informed of the Crown’s failure to comply with the Court’s directions, failure to comply with disclosure, and that if the Crown attempted to proceed to trial having prejudiced the defendant’s ability to present their statutory defence, that the defence would apply to exclude the Crown’s evidence pursuant to Section 78 PACE or seek to stay the case as an abuse of process.
On the day of trial, the morning was spent addressing the above issues and the Crown’s late service of evidence. The Crown also complied with initial disclosure and served unused material part way through the morning. The Court were complimentary of the defence, noting that in many cases the defence do not raise the failures to the Court’s attention as required by the Criminal Procedure Rules, but this was not one of those cases and the defence had complied with their obligations and made it clear what their position would be.
Following submissions and the service of an impromptu defence statement in response to the late disclosure, the Crown applied to adjourn the trial. This was swiftly refused by the Judge and therefore the Crown offered no evidence and our client was acquitted.
Terrorism
R v PR (2026) Allegations contrary to s12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 - No Further Action
We recently represented a professional client, PR, who had been arrested by the Counter Terrorism Command of the Metropolitan Police in respect of allegations contrary to s12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The allegations related to several messages which PR was said to have posted on X (formerly Twitter) which purportedly showed support for a proscribed organisation.
At the time of their arrest, PR was represented by a different firm of solicitors and made no comment during the initial police interview. As a regulated professional, PR recognised the potentially far -reaching consequences of their arrest and after the interview sought our assistance with pre-charge engagement.
We immediately obtained and reviewed the file from the previous solicitors and contacted the police to establish whether they would be willing to hold off on sending the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), pending written submissions on behalf of PR. The Senior Investigating Officer agreed and we set about taking PR’s full instructions on the matter, as well as, obtaining character references. This allowed us to make detailed representations to the effect that in all the circumstances, it was not in the public interest to prosecute PR. The CPS agreed and no further action was taken against PR.
This was a huge relief for our client who had never been in trouble with the police. PR had found the whole process overwhelming and before instructing Olliers had resigned themselves to what they feared was an inevitable prosecution.
The case once again serves as a reminder of the positive outcomes that can be achieved with a pro-active approach and the team at Olliers are on hand to provide appropriate advice and assistance to those who find themselves subject to criminal and regulatory investigations.
Contact our criminal pre-charge investigations solicitors
If you would like to discuss how we can proactively assist you in relation to your case at a pre-charge stage, contact us by telephone on 0161 834 1515, by email to info@olliers.com or complete the form below and we will contact you.
Pre-charge engagement refers to any voluntary engagement between parties to an criminal investigation (usually the defendant, the police and the prosecution) after the first police interview under caution.
Pre-charge engagement refers to any voluntary engagement between parties to an investigation. It is a voluntary process and can be terminated at any time.
It can be on an informal basis or a formal basis.
It may involve:
- Giving a suspect an opportunity to comment on further lines of enquiry
- Establishing whether a suspect can identify other lines of enquiry
- Asking a suspect whether they can provide access to digital material
- Discussing ways to overcome barriers to obtaining evidence
- Agreeing key word searches of digital material
- Obtaining a suspect’s consent to access medical records
- A suspect identifying and providing details of potential witnesses
- Clarifying whether expert or forensic evidence is agreed
- The above list is not exhaustive.
‘Pre charge engagement’ describes the relationship between defence lawyers and investigators.
Its provisions are contained at Annex B of ‘The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure 2024’ which came into force on 29th May 2024.
This replaced the previous ‘Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure 2020’ which came in on 31 December 2020.
The pre-charge engagement team at Olliers is known for its proactive approach in criminal investigations. We place great emphasis on bringing cases to an early conclusion without a client having to face the stress, trauma and cost of proceeding to court.
Throughout an investigation we maintain contact with investigating officers, establishing the full extent of the case against our client.
We simultaneously undertake defence enquiries that support our client’s case. This might involve making enquiries with defence witnesses, obtaining CCTV, going through messages and emails between the defendant and the complainant, obtaining third party information and
Our ultimate objective is to make pre-charge representations arguing against prosecution – arguing that there is not a ‘realistic prospect of a conviction’ or that a prosecution is not in the ‘public interest’
When facing the early stages of a criminal investigation, choosing the right legal representation is crucial. Pre-charge engagement is a critical phase where the decisions made can significantly impact the course and outcome of a case. Olliers Solicitors is a leading criminal defence law firm in criminal defence, renowned for its specialism in pre-charge representation.
Olliers Solicitors has a lengthy history of successfully representing clients at the pre-stage. Our experienced team has repeatedly demonstrated their ability to prevent charges from being brought, saving clients from the stress and consequences of a full-blown criminal trial.
At Olliers, every case is treated uniquely. Our expert lawyers take the time to understand the specific details and nuances of your situation, creating a personalised strategy that maximises the chances of a positive outcome. This tailored approach ensures that all relevant arguments and evidence are meticulously presented to the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Clients are kept informed at every stage of the process, with complex legal jargon explained in understandable terms. This transparency helps clients feel supported and empowered throughout their legal journey.
At Olliers we believe in the power of early intervention. By engaging with the police and CPS at the earliest possible stage, we aim to influence the decision-making process before formal charges are brought. This proactive approach can often lead to cases being dropped or diverted away from prosecution. The team conducts a thorough review of all available evidence, identifying weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and gathering additional evidence where necessary. This meticulous preparation ensures that our representations to the CPS are robust and persuasive.
We also understanding that legal issues come with personal and emotional challenges. We offer not only legal advice but also guidance on managing the personal impact of a criminal investigation.
Our impressive success rate in pre-charge engagements speaks for itself. Many clients have benefited from Olliers’ expert intervention, resulting in charges being avoided altogether. Testimonials and case studies available on our website highlight the positive outcomes achieved for numerous clients.
If you or a loved one are under investigation, don’t wait until charges are brought. Contact Olliers Solicitors to benefit from our expertise and dedication in achieving the best possible outcome in your case.
At Olliers we have significant experience of dealing with cases at the pre-charge investigative stage.
If you require advice in relation to a pre-charge criminal investigation, please contact our new enquiry team either by email to info@olliers.com, or by telephone on 020 3883 6790 (London) or 0161 834 1515 (Manchester) or by completing the form below and our new enquiry team will contact you.
Our experienced new enquiry team can discuss how instruction of Olliers would benefit your case, explain our strategy and proactive approach, assist with which of our specialist team would be most appropriate and discuss our fees and pricing structures.
Complete the form below and we will contact you
Manchester
Head Office
- 0161 8341515
- info@olliers.com
- Fourth Floor, 44 Peter Street, Manchester, M2 5GP